Marriage

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Would that be anything like egregores?

SL, you've piqued my interest in this term. I found something interesting in Wiki:

Originally Posted by Wiki

Egregore (also "egregor") is an occult concept representing a "thought form" or "collective group mind", an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme. See also: Thought-form, as the term is employed by Janet and Stewart Farrar.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples

Companies, political parties, religions, prayer groups, states, and clubs all can be said to have egregores. A prayer is a positive egregore. When a project "takes on a life of its own," an egregore might be said to be present. Symbolic characters such as Santa Claus and Uncle Sam could be described as egregores. Stephen King's concept of Ka-tet in The Dark Tower series could be compared to an egregore.

It almost sounds like a friendly "Borg" collective. Only without the mindlessness.

Incidently, the word also appears in the Septuagint in Lamentations 4:13-14 as 'watchmen':

13 "ἐξ ἁμαρτιῶν προφητῶν αὐτῆς ἀδικιῶν ἱερέων αὐτῆς τῶν ἐκχεόντων αἷμα δίκαιον ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς
14 ἐσαλεύθησαν ἐγρήγοροι αὐτῆς ἐν ταῖς ἐξόδοις ἐμολύνθησαν ἐν αἵματι ἐν τῷ μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτοὺς ἥψαντο ἐνδυμάτων αὐτῶν"

13 "For the sins of her prophets, and iniquities of her priests, who shed righteous blood in the midst of her,
14 her watchmen staggered in the streets, they were defiled with blood in their weakness, they touched their raiment with it."

[Dream]

Would that be anything like egregores?

Thinks for intraducing the word 'Egregore'. Its a vague enough concept to maybe include the other concept which I briefly ran across upon the internet, which is itself an egregore by that WPedia definition. Actually your new word reminds me of the new Doctor Who episode where The Master almost kills The Doctor, but the Doctor becomes an egregore, instead.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

Thinks for intraducing the word 'Egregore'. Its a vague enough concept to maybe include the other concept which I briefly ran across upon the internet, which is itself an egregore by that WPedia definition. Actually your new word reminds me of the new Doctor Who episode where The Master almost kills The Doctor, but the Doctor becomes an egregore, instead.

**raises one eyebrow** Interesting...hmm...

[Dream]

Life, the Universe, and Everything

We know that the story of the Garden of Eden is a picture of marriage. Paul in Romans bounces back and forth between the story and the Marriage Laws while he is explaining sin, our relationship to the law, life the universe and everything. It may seem strange, but for the early Christians who were Jews, Christianity began with divorce.

Originally Posted by Romans 7:2-4

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Here in Romans 7 Paul is describing divorce, which is a provision of Jewish law for any marriage in which the husband is unable or unwilling to uphold his end of the bargain. The provision of divorce is for the protection of the wives which releases them from all responsibility toward the husband, freeing them completely. It is also considered by Paul to be a death of each of the spouses towards one another. We know this because in verse 4, the brethren become 'dead to the law' as they join the body of Christ -- resulting in freedom from a system of regulations. They then are married to a new system. Paul is exactly shadowing Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in which a woman (the church in this case) must not return to the man who had divorced her once she remarries. Paul is not saying that the Law of Moses dies, but that when we crucify our selves along with Jesus upon the cross we become dead to the system of regulations and it to us. Later he explains why this is what was intended all along; and that that mere regulations are limited in their scope.

Continuing in chapter 7, Paul continues to describe the original marriage to a system of ordinances, using imagery from the Garden of Eden. In his version of the story, sin is the serpent and the fruit of knowledge of good & evil is the commandment. The commandment was good, but mankind with its sinful nature died by eating the fruit. The result, Paul argues, is that the nature of man must die. Since a Christian considers themselves to have been crucified with Christ, they are dead to a life of regulations and remarried to a life of living by the spirit. This means, briefly, they keep busy doing good things so that they won't have time to do bad things. Anyone who lives this way is beyond the need for regulations.

Originally Posted by Romans 7

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Summing up: the Garden of Eden is a picture of marriage. In every marriage is a serpent whose head must be squashed, but to accomplish this the man must accept a bruise upon his heel. Also, the man symbolizes God and the woman, Israel. Think of it as the pursuit that happens in romance, part of the natural order. At the beginning of marriage the man and woman are not in the garden but must travel towards the tree of life, however the way to the tree is barred by a cherubim with a 'Flaming sword' (or is it barred by the serpent with its fiery bite? I'm not sure. Maybe they're the same thing.)

On a personal level, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a good tree with good fruit. An angel would not be harmed by eating this fruit, however sin within mankind causes us to die when we eat this fruit. In Christ, however, we have already died to the sin within us by crucifying the the mortal nature through 'living by the spirit'. On a non-personal level, marriage and the Garden of Eden are picture of God's pursuit of Israel and of everyone who is part of the Household of Faith, the church. In that marriage there is also a serpent whose head must be squashed, and that is what history, life, the universe and everything is all about!

Originally Posted by Romans 8:7-10

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Originally Posted by Romans 8:13

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dream

Summing up: the Garden of Eden is a picture of marriage. In every marriage is a serpent whose head must be squashed, but to accomplish this the man must accept a bruise upon his heel....

Interesting concept, but makes me contemplate, what chance have we if those molded by the hands of G!d couldn't do it?

Garden of Eden appears to be a picture of a disfuncitonal marriage? Women listening to snakes and man pointing fingers with blame...not very supportive.

[Thomas]

Hi Dream ...

Originally Posted by Dream

We know that the story of the Garden of Eden is a picture of marriage.

Do we ... where is that taught? I would rather think the story of the Garden of Eden is the story of Innocence, which would preclude marriage ... marriage in a sense implies possession, a relation between two that excludes all others ...

So it might well be that marriage is a post-Fall condition, that won't apply in Heaven, because marriage, like the Law, is a necessity for man bound in sin. That's why the Law allowed divorce, because man was incapable of keeping his word, and that's why so many divorce today ... because man is incapable of keeping his word.

Originally Posted by Dream

... It may seem strange, but for the early Christians who were Jews, Christianity began with divorce.

Yes, that does seem strange ... I would have thought Christianity began with Baptism, the belief in Salvation, the Redemption, etc ... divorce would be very low on the scale of things ...

Originally Posted by Dream

They then are married to a new system. Paul is exactly shadowing Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in which a woman (the church in this case) must not return to the man who had divorced her once she remarries.

Technically, that's wrong. If true, then by sin man would have separated himself from the Church, without the possibility of return, whereas the reality is that sin is forgiven, and man can and did return, so I'm not sure what evidence you're grounding your thesis on?

Originally Posted by Dream

In his version of the story, sin is the serpent and the fruit of knowledge of good & evil is the commandment.

But that's not Christians, is it? Sin is, by definition, the free choice of the will to choose something other than the good. The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is death ... again ... I'm not sure where you're getting your exegesis from?

Originally Posted by Dream

On a personal level, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a good tree with good fruit.

If the fruit was good, then it would not have been forbidden to Adam and Eve, for God wills the good for all. The fruit is dangerous, indeed fatal ... so not good at all.

Originally Posted by Dream

An angel would not be harmed by eating this fruit,

Well, it depends whether the angel was allowed to eat the fruit, doesn't it? As you don't know, you can't say.

Originally Posted by Dream

however sin within mankind causes us to die when we eat this fruit.

Choosing to eat the fruit, which is privation of the good (evil) is an evil act in itself asa it defies the will of God ... too much focus on the fruit, not enough focus on the rejection and offence against God in eating the fruit.

Thomas

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Wil

Garden of Eden appears to be a picture of a disfuncitonal marriage? Women listening to snakes and man pointing fingers with blame...not very supportive.

That is an interesting point, however to my knowledge all marriages start out as dysfunctional, albeit in a paradise of affection. Similarly, the garden of Eden, which could be so ideal, starts out with a serpent in it. Rather than pointing and blaming, perhaps the man and woman were confessing their sins. The man said to God 'and I ate', and the woman said 'and I ate'. The serpent never did confess, and ultimate responsibility for the sin was laid upon the serpent by God. It is decreed that its head will be crushed -- not Adam's head, and not Eve's, although the penalty for sin was death. This is exactly Paul's point. Paul here in Romans 7 uses a lot of imagery from the garden while he's discussing marriage of persons as well as the church. Speaking of the 'Evil inclination' which I've heard Bananabrain mention before, Paul says "11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." This is exactly what the serpent in the garden did to Adam & Eve. Although Adam & Eve did die, there remained a way for them to find life since the ultimate cause of the sin was not theirs but the serpent's. Further expounding upon this, Paul explains the inner war between the sin (serpent) and the spirit (the seed).

Originally Posted by Romans 7:20-25

Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dream

That is an interesting point, however to my knowledge all marriages start out as dysfunctional, albeit in a paradise of affection.

That seems to me a supremely personal and judgemental opinion. Your marriage and those you know might well be dysfunctional ... but I can think of some that are not.

Originally Posted by Dream

Similarly, the garden of Eden, which could be so ideal, starts out with a serpent in it.

You miss the point, it's not a case of 'could be' ... the Garden was a Paradise, where God chose to walk and converse with His creature ... you fail to understand what the serpent signifies if you assume that it somehow 'sneaked in' to the Garden.

Originally Posted by Dream

Rather than pointing and blaming, perhaps the man and woman were confessing their sins.

Well lets read the text ...
"And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat."Genesis 3:12-13
No ... not a confession, definitely blaming someone else (even to the suggestion that it was God's fault for giving man a companion).

Originally Posted by Dream

The serpent never did confess, and ultimate responsibility for the sin was laid upon the serpent by God.

No, not according to Scripture. If the serpent was responsible, man would not be punished ... to punish someone for another's crime is an injustice. Man is responsible for his actions.

If you read Paul a little closer, you will see that it is in Adam we die, not the serpent, because of Adam's sin, not the serpent's.

Originally Posted by Dream

Although Adam & Eve did die, there remained a way for them to find life since the ultimate cause of the sin was not theirs but the serpent's.

No. Now you're saying they could save themselves without God, without

Man is saved because the Father wills it, not because some residual goodness survives, or that enough time's passed so God should have calmed down by now ... Again, if you follow Scripture, you will see that only in Christ we are saved, and if you were more aware of the Fathers, you'd know some of the arguments how.

The sin, the only sin that matter's, is the Primordial Couple's free decision to defy God ... that was the 'fruit' — to realise evil in the world.

Thomas

[Dream]

:
Originally Posted by Dream
We know that the story of the Garden of Eden is a picture of marriage.

Thomas
Do we ... where is that taught? I would rather think the story of the Garden of Eden is the story of Innocence, which would preclude marriage ... marriage in a sense implies possession, a relation between two that excludes all others ... So it might well be that marriage is a post-Fall condition, that won't apply in Heaven, because marriage, like the Law, is a necessity for man bound in sin. That's why the Law allowed divorce, because man was incapable of keeping his word, and that's why so many divorce today ... because man is incapable of keeping his word.

Divorce is, yes, a protection for brides. In Romans 7, this is Paul's explanation for why Jews who are baptized into Jesus no longer are 'Wed' to Moses law or any Christian to any particular protocol, so we could be 'Wed' to another. Paul argues that Moses law of regulations was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ but that it could not accomplish what was done through Christ's death (and ours). Observe the serpent in the wilderness, which was a type of Jesus own body upon the cross. It is the serpent in humanity, but its head was crushed by Jesus' obedience (and ours if we are in him). This serpent must be removed, mankind transformed, before the relationship with God can be complete. Marriage is God's pursuit of his people in a relationship that started out dysfunctional but has improved over the centuries. He was faithful in his pursuit, and his bride tested him building faith in him.

John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:17-18 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor(aid) them that are tempted.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

**************************************

:
Originally Posted by Dream
... It may seem strange, but for the early Christians who were Jews, Christianity began with divorce.

Thomas
Yes, that does seem strange ... I would have thought Christianity began with Baptism, the belief in Salvation, the Redemption, etc ... divorce would be very low on the scale of things ...

Baptism is the same idea -- a washing away of what a person once was and a death with Jesus upon the cross. Under the commission of the twelve, Jews were told they needed this very thing -- a new baptism.

Acts 2:40-41 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

**************************************

:
Originally Posted by Dream
They then are married to a new system. Paul is exactly shadowing Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in which a woman (the church in this case) must not return to the man who had divorced her once she remarries.

Thomas
Technically, that's wrong. If true, then by sin man would have separated himself from the Church, without the possibility of return, whereas the reality is that sin is forgiven, and man can and did return, so I'm not sure what evidence you're grounding your thesis on?

The idea is to divorce a life of rules and regulations in order to live by the spirit and never go back to living merely by rules. We are not talking about leaving the church. Leaving the church or the church leaving God is similar to when a woman leaves her husband. In many cases he will persuade her to come back to him, which is not the same as a reversed-divorce, which would be to her detriment. (In Moses' law if he divorces her and she remarries then he cannot remarry or pursue her, ever.)

**************************************

: Originally Posted by Dream

In his version of the story, sin is the serpent and the fruit of knowledge of good & evil is the commandment.

Thomas
But that's not Christians, is it? Sin is, by definition, the free choice of the will to choose something other than the good. The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is death ... again ... I'm not sure where you're getting your exegesis from?

'A sin' is a freely made choice, however in Paul's discourse 'Sin' is also an inclination within mankind, which he calls the law of sin. He says it is proven to exist when we struggle to do right but wind up doing wrong instead! It is the serpent upon the brass pole and that which was condemned upon the cross.

Romans 7:20-21 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

**************************************

:
Originally Posted by Dream
On a personal level, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a good tree with good fruit.

Thomas
If the fruit was good, then it would not have been forbidden to Adam and Eve, for God wills the good for all. The fruit is dangerous, indeed fatal ... so not good at all.

"I'm referring to Paul's statement " What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead." (Romans 7:7-8)

So the fruit was, as Eve observed in Genesis, good for food. The problem was the serpent, which Paul visualizes as part of our internal humanity.

**************************************

:
Originally Posted by Dream
An angel would not be harmed by eating this fruit,

Thomas
Well, it depends whether the angel was allowed to eat the fruit, doesn't it? As you don't know, you can't say.

Yes, it was a mistake to say that.

**************************************

:
Originally Posted by Dream
however sin within mankind causes us to die when we eat this fruit.

Thomas
Choosing to eat the fruit, which is privation of the good (evil) is an evil act in itself as it defies the will of God ... too much focus on the fruit, not enough focus on the rejection and offence against God in eating the fruit.

Thomas

Very thoughtful. Paul internalizes the serpent as a law of sin within him, saying that it wars within his members and deceived him the moment the commandment came. He says the commandment is good, yet it kills us to receive it since we are sinful. So just taking clues from Paul, the fruit is a double-whammy, because Adam was told not to eat of it however the serpent told Eve that she should. The serpent who spoke and the fruit are visuals of what was happening inside of Adam, so there is both a visual and an internal story.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Thomas

That seems to me a supremely personal and judgemental opinion. Your marriage and those you know might well be dysfunctional ... but I can think of some that are not.

Well, even way beyond courtship there is always the need to reassure the girl. They only gradually believe that you really, really love them until -- I don't know when. When you're both old, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Thomas

You miss the point, it's not a case of 'could be' ... the Garden was a Paradise, where God chose to walk and converse with His creature ... you fail to understand what the serpent signifies if you assume that it somehow 'sneaked in' to the Garden.

No, I don't think that. Paul says that the law of sin is in man that it might be exposed, condemned, made exceeding sinful. That doesn't mean we should continue in sin, of course. God forbid!

Romans 7:13-14 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well lets read the text ...
"And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat."Genesis 3:12-13
No ... not a confession, definitely blaming someone else (even to the suggestion that it was God's fault for giving man a companion).

One reason it doesn't sound like blame to me is the honesty -- the serpent did beguile her in the sense that sin beguiled Paul. She did give the fruit to Adam, whatever the fruit was. Another reason is that the same language (beguiled) is employed when Midian beguiles Israel in the matter of Peor (Numbers 25:18), and in that scenario there was nothing to be gained by blaming Midian for Israel's actions. It was simply an honest accounting of the event.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No, not according to Scripture. If the serpent was responsible, man would not be punished ... to punish someone for another's crime is an injustice. Man is responsible for his actions.

The idea is to condemn man's sinful tendencies, and death is no obstacle to that. Achan sinned, but many men died because of it. Phineas killed a man and saved thousands. That doesn't mean we are without worth, but it does mean that God could justly kill us all.

Originally Posted by Thomas

If you read Paul a little closer, you will see that it is in Adam we die, not the serpent, because of Adam's sin, not the serpent's.

'In Adam' refers to our likeness to Adam. By the principle that Adam must die, so must we since we are like him. Adam had the same war within his members as Paul -- the same sin that beguiled him. [/quote]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No. Now you're saying they could save themselves without God, without

Man is saved because the Father wills it, not because some residual goodness survives, or that enough time's passed so God should have calmed down by now ... Again, if you follow Scripture, you will see that only in Christ we are saved, and if you were more aware of the Fathers, you'd know some of the arguments how.

The sin, the only sin that matter's, is the Primordial Couple's free decision to defy God ... that was the 'fruit' — to realise evil in the world.

Thomas

You said it: only in Christ are we saved, by the Father's will. You love, Thomas. Your faith has saved you, however you shouldn't be trusting in religious authorities. These are exactly what John the Baptist and Jesus denied, and they are idolatry. Living by the spirit is not consistent with having a separate clergy. Acknowledge God's hand which alone preserves truths from generation to generation. No human institution can say that it has done anything for God.

[Dream]

I've always wondered how Egyptians came to tell this version of the story. For the present I assume it is another version of the original Genesis story. Some scholars propose this imagery is older than that of Genesis, but I think theirs is the bigger assumption. The symbols used are similar in each, since Bast the female goddess represents wisdom in Egyptian traditions while in Judaism wisdom is seen as a woman. (Perhaps wisdom found herself growing the head of a cat in order to express some philosophical aspect of wisdom, but I'm just trying to impart the gist of how it seems to me.) There are interpretations of Egyptian lore that say the gods and goddesses were developed to explain facets of the Divine. To me, this sounds similar to the concept of names or titles of the L!RD in Judaism. I think the biggest difference between the Egyptian and Mosaic approaches is the absence of images in Judaism and the fact there are not separate priesthoods for the facets of the Divine. Since the Egyptians had an entire priesthood for each god or goddess, the tendency was to embellish and extend. In both representations, there is a serpent, a tree, and a wisdom as female somehow involved in the destruction of the serpent's head. I admit I'm speculating, but that admission strengthens my argument. I think that the practical power of monotheism is still in progress, gradually destroying the human justification of the abuses of religious power. I see in Christianity and Judaism supreme arguments against any central religious authority, and all of them woven with the imagery of the Garden of Eden.

[Dream]

Having said all of that, I don't know much about the meaning of the tree and serpent in Egyptology. Its all a wild guess, except that the imagery is extremely similar and the Israelites really did come out of Egypt. According to the account in Genesis, they picked up Egyptian habits and gods while they were in Egypt and had to forget about them after they left.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

I've always wondered how Egyptians came to tell this version of the story. For the present I assume it is another version of the original Genesis story. Some scholars propose this imagery is older than that of Genesis, but I think theirs is the bigger assumption. The symbols used are similar in each, since Bast the female goddess represents wisdom in Egyptian traditions while in Judaism wisdom is seen as a woman. (Perhaps wisdom found herself growing the head of a cat in order to express some philosophical aspect of wisdom, but I'm just trying to impart the gist of how it seems to me.) There are interpretations of Egyptian lore that say the gods and goddesses were developed to explain facets of the Divine. To me, this sounds similar to the concept of names or titles of the L!RD in Judaism. I think the biggest difference between the Egyptian and Mosaic approaches is the absence of images in Judaism and the fact there are not separate priesthoods for the facets of the Divine. Since the Egyptians had an entire priesthood for each god or goddess, the tendency was to embellish and extend. In both representations, there is a serpent, a tree, and a wisdom as female somehow involved in the destruction of the serpent's head. I admit I'm speculating, but that admission strengthens my argument. I think that the practical power of monotheism is still in progress, gradually destroying the human justification of the abuses of religious power. I see in Christianity and Judaism supreme arguments against any central religious authority, and all of them woven with the imagery of the Garden of Eden.

Apep, the serpent of chaos, was supposed to be slain every night so the sun could rise in the morning, since he tried to interfere with Ra's night time journey through the underworld. Many different gods and goddesses, including Set, took turns slaying Apep, not just Bastet.

[Dream]

Here's a tiny quote from "touregypt.net" :

This brief overview is meant only to explain some of the basic concepts and to introduce some of the gods. Religion in ancient Egypt was not unlike modern times. Today, not everyone believes in the same way, or of the same god. Egypt was no different. Individual kings worshipped their own gods, as did the workers, priests, merchants and peasants. Pre-dynastic Egypt had formulated the ideas and beliefs of a "greater being", which was expressed in pictures, but some scholars suggest that "writing" was invented in order to communicate spiritual thoughts to the masses. Now the pictures had ideas, and took on human traits. The gods lived, died, hunted, went into battle, gave birth, ate, drank, and had human emotions. The gods reigns overlapped, and, in some instances, merged. Their was no organized hierarchy structure of their reign. The dominance of the gods depended on the beliefs of the reigning king.

[LeoSalinas22]

awesome posts thomas and dream.

the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is amongst my favorite stories in the bible because they explain so much of why man is puddy in the hands of a woman. i too see that when God asks Adam and Eve about what they had done, that they blamed each other. this account reminds me so much of children blaming each other. i had always thought that Adam and Eve were literally small children at the point they ate the fruit. but that is my opinion.anyhow, they did try to hide from God's Voice walking in the garden (that is amazing! even though it doesn't make sense.) but for naught, of course. that is why i don't see that they were confessing because they were trying to hide to begin with.

but, is it me or was the serpent telling the truth? he (he? what the heck am i saying. "it", no? aaaah i don't know. anyways...) said that if they ate of the fruit, that they would be like God, knowing good and evil. what is wrong with that? to me it explains why we aren't in the 7th day of God's rest because we aren't in His image yet. at the end of the 6th day, we will finally be in His image. meaning He isn't done creating man in His image yet (confusing, i know, but i can't find any other way for it to make sense). so until man can finally make the true distinction of good and evil, then and only then will we finally be in His image. when we can finally judge just like God would judge. because our judgments are just poor. they are not like God's judgments, otherwise, it would be a heavenly kingdom on earth.

it is so interesting how Eve convinces Adam to eat the fruit. i read in a book once called the book of Adam and Eve where it says that they both in the beginning were like the angels of heaven. full of glory and light. but as soon as they took of the fruit, they became like the beasts of the earth. just brutish and just animal-like. in my thoughts, Adam felt sorry for Eve. in Adams wisdom, He would do what God would do, be there for his wife, instead of just abandoning her. he would stick by her side until the end because he loved her that much that he would sacrifice himself so that she wouldn't be alone. dang it, the trinity kinda makes sense if looked at this perspective (bear with me guys, all of this is just dawning on me. amazing...).

i can agree with the serpent being the inner inclination of the sin of man. not literally being a snake but something like an inner voice within the sons of man. after all, the snake in many ancient cultures for one reason or another represent wisdom. and to top it off, females at a younger age become mature mentally. in other words, females wise up first for some reason. but to me Genesis explains this very well.

but i don't see the curse as a punishment. but as a means to an end. the only way we can ever be like God is by knowing good or evil. there is no other way to find peace. its heartbreaking that the sons of man have to suffer and die, but we brought this on ourselves. God in His wisdom, knew this would happen. this is a lesson in discipline but it is also a means to become one with Him. which other way could there be? but to go through the fire and be cleansed. it'll hurt, but it is just for a short while. at least in God's Eyes, anyways.